Our ancestors expelled colonial rulers in 1947 after great struggle and sacrifices so that people could freely live in peace in line with Islamic values of freedom, equality and justice, but oppressors rule through their proxies, the corrupt ruling elite. We must break all the shackles of slavery, regain independence and dignity! We have enormous potentials,reject plunderers and support competent and honest leadership. Freedom is Priceless

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Dialogue - A Guide

Introduction:

Today when we speak of dialogue between Government
of Pakistan and TTP [Taliban] we mean something quite definite, namely, a
two-way communication between persons; one-way lecturing or speaking is
obviously not dialogue. Here effort is made to understand various aspects of
dialogue for meaningful results through extracts from book “Trialogue”. There
are many different kinds of two-way communication, for example, fighting,
wrangling, debating, etc. Clearly none of these are dialogue. On the other
extreme is the communication between persons who hold precisely the same views
on a particular subject. We also do not mean this when we use the term
dialogue; rather, we might call that something like encouragement,
reinforcement—but certainly not dialogue. Now if we look at these two opposite
kinds of two-way communication which are not meant by the word dialogue, we can
learn quite precisely what we do in fact mean when we use the term dialogue.

Looking at the last example first—the
principle underlying “reinforcement” is the assumption that both sides have a
total grasp on the truth of the subject and hence simply need to be supported
in their commitment to it. Since this example and the principle underlying it
are excluded from the meaning of dialogue, clearly dialogue must include the
notion that neither side (at least at individual
level) has a total grasp of
the truth of the subject, but that both need to seek further.

The principle underlying “debating” in the
second example is the assumption that one side has all the truth concerning the
subject and that the other side needs to be informed or convinced of it. Since that
example also and its principle are excluded from the meaning of dialogue, this
clearly implies that dialogue means that no one side has a monopoly on the
truth on the subject, but both need to seek further.

It may turn out in some instances, of course,
that after a more or less extensive dialogue, it is learned that the two sides
in fact agree completely on the subject discussed. Naturally, such a discovery
does not mean that the encounter was a non-dialogue, but rather that the
dialogue was the means of learning the new truth that both sides agreed on the
subject. To continue from that point on, however, to
speak only about the area of agreement,
would then be to move from dialogue to reinforcement.

Hence, to express at least the initial part of the meaning of dialogue
positively: dialogue is a two-way communication between persons who hold
significantly differing views on a subject, with the purpose of learning more
truth about the subject from one another.

This analysis may seem obvious and hence
superfluous. But we believe not. Dialogue has become a faddish term and is
sometimes, like charity, used to cover a multitude of sins. Sometimes, for example,
it is used by those who are quite convinced that they have all the truth
on a subject, but feel that in today’s climate with “dialogue” in vogue, a less
aggressive style will be more effective in communicating to the “ignorant” the
truth that they already possess in full.
Therefore, while their encounters with others still rely on the older
non-dialogue principle—that they have all the truth on a subject—their less
importuning approach will now be called “dialogue.” This type of use would
appear to be merely an opportunistic manipulation of the term dialogue.

Maybe some of those people, however, truly
believe that they are engaging in dialogue when they employ such a “soft sell”
approach and encourage their interlocutors to also express their own views on
the subject—even though it is known ahead of time, of course, that they are
false—for such a “dialogue” may well make the ignorant person more open to
receiving the truth that the one side knows it already has. In that situation,
the “truth-holders” simply had a basic misunderstanding of the term dialogue
and mistakenly called their convert-making “dialogue.” Therefore, the above
clarification is important.

In this context, we are speaking about a
particular kind of dialogue, namely interreligious dialogue in
the broadest sense, that is, dialogue on
a religious subject by persons who understand themselves to be in different
religious traditions and communities. If religion is understood as an
explanation of the ultimate meaning of life and how to live accordingly, that
would include all such systems, even though they customarily would not be
called religions, but rather, ideologies, such as, atheistic Humanism and
Marxism. Hence, it is more accurate to speak of both interreligious and
interideological dialogue.

Components of Dialogue:

Dialogue—the mutually beneficial interaction
of differing components—is at the very heart of the Universe, of which we
humans are the highest expression. It’s there in the basic interaction of
Matter and Energy (in Einstein’s unforgettable formula: E=mc2—Energy equals
mass times the square of the speed of light), in the creative interaction of
Protons and Electrons in every atom, in the vital symbiosis of Body and Spirit
in every human, in the creative dialogue between Woman and Man, and in the
dynamic relationship between Individual and Society. Thus, the very essence of
our humanity is dialogical, and a fulfilled human life is the highest expression
of the “Cosmic Dance of Dialogue.”

In the early millennia of the history of
humanity, as we spread outward from our starting point in central Africa,
the forces of Divergence were dominant. However, because we live on a globe, in
our frenetic divergence we eventually began to encounter each other more and
more frequently. Now the forces of stunning Convergence are becoming
increasingly dominant.

In the past, during the age of divergence,
we could live in isolation from each other; we could ignore each other. Now, in
the age of convergence, we are forced to live in one world. We increasingly
live in a global village. We cannot ignore the other, the different. Too often
in the past we have tried to make over the other into a likeness of ourselves,
often by violence. But this is the very opposite of dialogue. This egocentric
arrogance is in fundamental opposition to the Cosmic Dance of Dialogue. It is
not creative; it is destructive. Hence, we humans today have a stark choice:
dialogue or death!

Dialogues of the
Head, Hands, and Heart

For us humans there are three main
dimensions to dialogue—the mutually beneficial interaction among those who are
different—corresponding to the structure of our humanness: dialogue of the
head, dialogue of the hands, and dialogue of the heart.

The Cognitive or
Intellectual: Seeking the Truth

In the dialogue of the head, we mentally
reach out to the other to learn from those who think differently from us. We
try to understand how they see the world and why they act as they do. This
dialogue of the head is vital, for how we see and understand the world and life
determines how we act toward ourselves, toward other persons, and toward the
world around us.

The Illative or
Ethical: Seeking the Good

In the dialogue of the hands, we join
together with others to work to make the world a better place in which we all
must live together. Since we can no longer live separately in this one world,
we must work jointly to make it not just a house but a home for all of us.

The Affective or
Aesthetic: Seeking the Beautiful

In the dialogue of the heart, we share in
the expressions of the emotions of those different from us. Because we humans
are body and spirit, or rather body-spirit, we give bodily-spiritual expression
in all the arts to our multifarious responses to our encounters with life: joy,
sorrow, gratitude, anger, and most of all, love. All the world delights in
beauty, wherein we find the familiar that avoids sameness, and wherein we find
diversity that avoids distastefulness.

Wholeness and
Holiness: Seeking the One

We humans cannot live a divided life for
long. If we are to even survive, let alone flourish, we must “get it all
together.” We must live a “whole” life. Indeed, this is what the religions of
the Western tradition mean when they say that we humans should be “holy.”
Literally, to be holy means to be whole. Hence, in our human dance of dialogue,
we must “get it all together,” we must be whole and holy. We must dance
together the dialogue of the head, the dialogue of the hands, and the dialogue
of the heart.

Seven
Views of “Truth”

1. Classicist/absolutist:
Truth is static, unchanging, absolute, and universal. (What was true in Africa
in 1000 BCE is true in North
America in 2007.)

2. Historical:
Truth claims are time-bound; awareness of what is true changes through history.

3. Praxis/intentional: The
intentions and goals of truth-seekers influence what they identify as truth.

7. Dialogic: Since
truth claims are limited and perspectival, truth-seeking happens best when
people engage in open dialogue with others who together seek closer
approximations of the truth.

The
Importance of Dialogue

Why Dialogue
Arose

One can, of course, justifiably point to a
number of recent developments that have contributed to the rise of dialogue,
for example, growth in mass education, communications, and travel, a world
economy, threatening global destruction. Nevertheless, a major underlying cause
is a paradigm shift in the West in how we perceive and describe the world. A
paradigm is simply the model, the cluster of assumptions, on whose basis
phenomena are perceived and explained, for example, the geocentric paradigm for
explaining the movements of the planets. A shift to another paradigm—as to the
heliocentric—will have a major impact. Such a paradigm shift has occurred and
is still occurring in the Western understanding of truth statements, which has made
dialogue not just possible, but necessary.

Whereas the understanding of truth in the
West was largely absolute, static, monologic, or exclusive up to the nineteenth
century, it has subsequently become de-absolutized, dynamic, and dialogic—in a
word relational. This relatively new view of truth came about in at least six
different but closely related ways.

1. Until the nineteenth century in Europe,
truth (a statement about reality) was conceived in an absolute, static,
exclusivistic either-or manner. It was believed that if a statement was true at
one time, it would remain true, and not only in the sense of statements about
empirical facts but also in the sense of statements about the meanings of
things. Such is a classicist or absolutist view of truth.

2. Then, in the nineteenth century, scholars
came to perceive all statements about the meaning of something as being
partially products of their historical circumstances. Only by placing truth
statements in their historical situations, their historical ‘Sitz
im Leben’, could they be properly
understood. [In Biblical criticism, ‘Sitz
im Leben’ is a German phrase
roughly translating to "setting in life"] A text could be understood only in context.
Therefore, all statements about the meaning of things were seen to be
de-absolutized in terms of time. Such is a historical view of truth.

3. Later on it was noted that we ask
questions so as to obtain the knowledge and truth according to which we want to
live. This is a praxis or intentional view of truth, that is, a statement has
to be understood in relationship to the action-oriented intention of the
thinker.

4. Early in the twentieth century, Karl
Mannheim developed what he called the sociology of knowledge, which points out
that every statement about truth and meaning is perspectival because all
reality is perceived and spoken of from the cultural, class, sexual, and so
forth, perspective of the perceiver. Such is a perspectival view of truth.

5. A number of thinkers, and most especially
Ludwig Wittgenstein, have discovered something of the limitations of human
language. Every description of reality is necessarily only partial, for
although reality can be seen from an almost limitless number of perspectives,
human language can express things from only one perspective at once. This
partial and limited quality of all language is necessarily greatly intensified
when one attempts to speak of the transcendent, which by definition
“goes-beyond.” Such is a language-limited view of truth.

6. The contemporary discipline of hermeneutics
stresses that all knowledge is interpreted knowledge. This means that in all
knowledge “I” come to know something; the object comes into me in a certain
way, namely, through the lens that I use to perceive it. As Thomas Aquinas
wrote, “Things known are in the knower according to the mode of the knower.”1
Such is an interpretative view of truth.

7. Further yet, reality can “speak” to me
only with the language that I give it. The “answers” that I receive back from
reality will always be in the language, the thought categories, of the
questions I put to it. If and when the answers I receive are sometimes confused
and unsatisfying, I probably need to learn to speak a more appropriate language
when I put questions to reality. For example, if I ask the question: “How heavy
is green?” of course I will receive a nonsense answer. Or if I ask questions
about living things in mechanical categories, I will receive confusing and
unsatisfying answers. I will likewise receive confusing and unsatisfying
answers to questions about human sexuality if I use categories that are solely
physical-biological. Witness the absurdity of the answer that birth control is
forbidden by the natural law—the question falsely assumes that the nature of
humanity is merely physical-biological. Such an understanding of truth is a
dialogic understanding.

In brief, our understanding of truth and
reality has been undergoing a radical shift. The new paradigm understands all
statements about reality, especially about the meaning of things, to be
historical, praxial or intentional, perspectival, language-limited or partial,
interpretive, and dialogic. Our understanding of truth statements, in short,
has become “de-absolutized”—it has become “relational.” All statements about
reality are now seen to be related to the historical context, praxis
intentionality, perspective, etc., of the speaker, and in that sense are no
longer “absolute.” Therefore, if my perception and description of the world is
true only in a limited sense, that is, only as seen from my place in the world,
if I wish to expand my grasp of reality, I need to learn from others what they
know of reality that they can perceive from their place in the world that I
cannot see from mine. That, however, can happen only through dialogue.

Who Should
Dialogue

One important question is, who can, who
should, engage in interreligious, interideological dialogue? There is clearly a
fundamental communal aspect to such a dialogue. For example, if a person is
neither a Lutheran nor a Jew, he or she could not engage in a specifically
Lutheran-Jewish dialogue. Likewise, persons not belonging to any religious or
ideological community could not, of course, engage in interreligious,
interideological dialogue. They might of course engage in meaningful religious
or ideological dialogue, but it simply would not be interreligious,
interideological, between religions or ideologies.

Who then would qualify as a member of a
religious community? If the question is of the official representation of a
community at a dialogue, the clear answer is those who are appointed by the
appropriate official body in that community: the congregation, Bet Din, roshi,
bishop, Central Committee or whatever. However, if it is not a case of official
representation, general reputation is usually the criteria. Some persons’
qualifications, however, can be challenged by elements within a community, even
very important official elements. The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, for example, has declared that Professors Hans Küng, Charles Curran,
and Roger Haight are no longer to be considered Catholic theologians. In all
three cases, however, hundreds of Catholic theologians subsequently stated
publicly in writing that they were indeed still Catholic theologians.

In the end, however, it seems best to follow
the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself whether or
not they are members of a religious community. Extraordinary cases may at rare
times present initial anomalies, but they inevitably will resolve themselves.
Furthermore, it is important to be aware that, especially in the initial stages
of any interreligious, interideological dialogue, it is very likely that the
literally ec-centric members of religious, ideological communities will be the
ones who will have the interest and ability to enter into dialogue. The more
centrist persons will do so only after the dialogue has been proved safe for
the mainline, official elements to venture into.

It is important to note that interreligious,
interideological dialogue is not limited to official representatives of
communities. Actually the great majority of the vast amount of such dialogue,
particularly in the past four decades, has not been carried on by official
representatives, although that too has been happening with increasing
frequency.

What is needed then is 1) an openness to
learn from the other, 2) knowledge of one’s own tradition, and 3) a similarly
disposed and knowledgeable dialogue partner from the other tradition. This can
happen on almost any level of knowledge and education. The key is the openness
to learn from the other. Naturally no one’s knowledge of his or her own
tradition can ever be complete; each person must continually learn more about
it. One merely needs to realize that one’s knowledge is in fact limited and
know where to turn to gain the information needed. It is also important,
however, that the dialogue partners be more or less equal in knowledge of their
own traditions. The larger the asymmetry is, the less the communication will be
two-way or dialogic.

Hence, it is important that interreligious,
interideological dialogue not be limited to official representatives or even to
the experts in the various traditions, although they both have their
irreplaceable roles to play in the dialogue. Dialogue should involve every
level of religious and ideological communities, all the way down to the
“persons in the pews.” Only in this way will the religious, ideological
communities learn from one another and come to understand one another as they
truly are.

The Catholic bishops of the world expressed
this insight very clearly and vigorously at the Second Vatican Council
(1962–65) when they “exhorted all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs
of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of
ecumenism [dialogue among the Christian churches, and in an extended
understanding, dialogue among the religions and ideologies, as is made clear by
other Vatican II documents and the establishment of permanent Vatican Secretariats
for dialogue with non-Christians and with non-Believers].” Not being content
with this exhortation, the bishops went on to say that, “in ecumenical work,
[all] Catholics must…make the first approaches toward them [non-Catholics].” In
case there were some opaque minds or recalcitrant wills out there, the bishops
once more made it clear that ecumenism [interreligious, interideological
dialogue] “involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike. It extends to
everyone, according to the talent of each” (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism,
4,5). Certainly this insight is not to be limited to the one billion-plus
Catholics in the world—and the further billions they directly or indirectly
influence—massive and important as that group may be.

However, what about the challenge of those
who charge that “dialogists” are really elitists because they define dialogue
in such a liberal manner that only like-minded liberals can join in? In fact,
only those who have a “de-absolutized” understanding of truth will be able or
even want to enter into dialogue. Put in other words, only those who understand
all truth statements, that is, all statements about reality, to be always
limited in a variety of ways and in that sense not absolute (the word comes
from the Latin ab-solvere, “un-limited”), can enter into dialogue. This,
however, is no elitist discrimination against “absolutists” or fundamentalists
by not allowing them to engage in dialogue. Such a charge would simply be
another case of not understanding what dialogue is: a two-way communication so
that both sides can learn. If one partner grants that it has
something to learn from the other, that admission presupposes that the first
partner has only a limited—a de-absolutized—grasp of truth concerning the
subject. If one partner thinks that it has an absolute grasp of the truth
concerning the subject, it obviously believes that it has nothing to learn from
the other, and hence the encounter will not be a dialogue but some kind of
attempt at one-way teaching or a debate.
Thus the partner with the absolutized view of truth will not only not be able
to engage in dialogue, it will very much not want to—unless it falls into the
category either of harbouring the earlier described misunderstanding of the
meaning of dialogue or the intention of an opportunistic manipulation of the
term.

Kinds of Dialogue

Interreligious dialogue leads to…

1. New information about others

2. Expanded understanding of ourselves

3. Changes in attitudes and perspective

4. Behavioural change

In the question of what constitutes
interreligious, interideological dialogue, it is important to notice that we
normally mean a two-way communication in ideas and words. At times, however, we
give the term an extended meaning of joint action or collaboration and joint
prayer or sharing of the spiritual or depth dimension of our tradition. While
the intellectual and verbal communication is indeed the primary meaning of
dialogue, if the results there from do not spill over into the other two areas
of action and spirituality, it will have proved sterile. Beyond that it can
lead toward a kind of schizophrenia and even hypocrisy.

On the positive side, serious involvement in
joint action and/or spirituality will tend to challenge previously-held
intellectual positions and lead to dialogue in the cognitive field. Catholic
and Protestant clergy, for example, who found themselves together in the Nazi
Concentration Camp in Dachau because of joint resistance to Nazi actions began
to ask each other why they did what they did and through dialogue were
surprised to learn that they held many more positions in common than positions
that separated them. In fact these encounters and others like them fostered the
Una Sancta Movement in Germany, which in turn was the engine that moved the
Catholic Church in the Second Vatican Council officially to embrace ecumenism
and interreligious dialogue after many centuries of vigorous official
rejection.

Because religion is not something just of
the head and the hands, but also of the heart—of the whole human being—our
encounter with our partner must also eventually include the depth or spiritual
dimension. This spiritual or depth dimension engages our emotions, our
imagination, our intuitive consciousness. If we do not come to know each other
in this deepest dimension of ourselves, our dialogue will remain relatively
superficial. The technique called by John Dunne “crossing over” can be of help
here. Through it we focus on a central image, metaphor, from our partner’s
spiritual life and let it work on our imagination, our emotions, evoking
whatever responses it may, leading us to different feelings. We then return to
our own inner world enriched, expanded, with a deeper sympathy for and
sensitivity to our partner’s inner world. Within the context of this expanded
inner dimension, we will be prompted to look thereafter for new cognitive
articulations adequate to reflect it, and we will be prompted to express our
new awareness and understanding of our partner’s religious reality in
appropriate action.

Encountering our partner on merely one or
two levels will indeed be authentic dialogue, but given the integrative and
comprehensive nature of religion and ideology, it is only natural that we be
led from dialogue on one level to the others. Only with dialogue in this full
fashion on all three levels will our interreligious, interideological dialogue
be complete.

Goals of Dialogue

The general goal of dialogue is for each side to learn and to change
accordingly. Naturally if each side comes to the encounter primarily to learn
from the other, the other side must teach, and thus both learning and teaching
occur. We know, however, that if each side comes primarily to teach, both sides
will tend to close up and as a result neither teaching nor learning takes
place.

We naturally gradually learn more and more
about our partners in the dialogue and in the process also shuck off the
misinformation about them we may have had. However, we also learn something
more, something even closer to home. Our dialogue partner likewise becomes for
us something of a mirror in which we perceive ourselves in ways we otherwise
could not. In the very process of responding to the questions of our partners
we look into our inner selves and into our traditions in ways that we perhaps
never would have, and thus come to know ourselves as we could not have outside
the dialogue.

In addition, in listening to our partners’
descriptions of their perceptions of us, we learn much about “how we are in the
world.” Because no one is simply in himself or herself, but is always in
relationship to others, “how we are in the world,” how we relate to and impact
others, is in fact part of our reality, is part of us. As an example, it
is only by being in dialogue with another culture that we really come to know
our own. I became aware of my
particular American culture, for example, only as I lived in Europe
for a number of years. I became conscious of American culture as such with its
similarities to and differences from the European only in the mirror of my
dialogue partner of European culture.

This expanded knowledge of ourselves and of
the other that we gain in dialogue cannot, of course, remain ineffective in our
lives. As our self-understanding and understanding of those persons and things
around us change, so too must our attitude toward ourselves and others change,
and thus our behavior as well. Once again, to the extent that this inner and
outer change, this transformation, does not take place, to that extent we tend
toward schizophrenia and hypocrisy. Whether one wants to speak of dialogue and
then of the subsequent transformation as “beyond dialogue,” as John Cobb does
in his book Beyond Dialogue, or speak of transformation as an integral part of
the continuing dialogue process, as Klaus Klostermeier does (Journal of
Ecumenical Studies, 21, 4 [Fall, 1984], pp. 755–59), need not detain us here.
What is important is to see that the chain of dialogue-knowledge-change must
not be broken. If the final link, change, falls away, the authenticity of the
second, knowledge, and the first, dialogue, are called into question. To
repeat: The goal of dialogue is for “each side to learn and
change accordingly.” [even
if this change is in attitude, perception or behaviour]

There are likewise communal goals in
interreligious, interideological dialogue. Some of these will be special to the
situation of the particular dialogue partners. Several Christian churches, for
example, may enter into dialogue with the goal of structural union. Such union
goals, however, will be something particular to religious communities within
one religion, that is, within Christianity, within Buddhism, within Islam, etc.
Dialogue between different religions and ideologies will not have this
structural union goal. Rather, it will seek first of all to know the dialogue
partners as accurately as possible and try to understand them as
sympathetically as possible. Dialogue will seek to learn what the partners’
commonalities and differences are.

[“Say: “O people of the Book! Let us get
together on what is common between us and you:..” (Qur’an;3:64)]

There is a simple technique to learn where the authentic commonalities
and differences are between two religions or ideologies: Attempt to agree with
the dialogue partner as far as possible on a subject without violating one’s
own integrity; where one can go no further, that is where the authentic
difference is and what has been shared up until that point are commonalities.
Experience informs us that very often our true differences lie elsewhere than
we had believed before the dialogue.

One communal goal in looking to learn the
commonalities and differences two religions hold is to bridge over antipathies
and misunderstandings—to draw closer together in thought, feeling, and action
on the basis of commonalities held. This goal, however, can be reached only if
another principle is also observed: interreligious,
interideological dialogue must be a two-sided dialogue—across the communal
divide and within it. We
need to be in regular dialogue with our fellow religionists, sharing with them
the results of our interreligious, interideological dialogue so they too can
enhance their understanding of what is held in common and where the differences
truly are. Only thus can both communities grow in knowledge and inner and outer
transformation and thereby bridge antipathies and draw closer. Further, if this
two-sided dialogue is not maintained, the individual dialogue partners alone
will grow in knowledge and experience the resultant transformation, thus slowly
moving away from their unchanging community, thereby becoming a third reality,
a tertium quid—hardly the intended integrative goal of dialogue.

It is important to learn as fully as
possible the things we share in common with our dialogue partners, which most
often will be much more extensive than we could have anticipated beforehand; we
will thus be drawn together in greater harmony. It is also important that we
learn more comprehensively what our differences are. Such differences may be 1)
complementary, as for example, emphasis on the prophetic rather than the
mystical, 2) analogous, as for example, the notion of God in the Semitic
religions and of Sunyata in Mahayana Buddhism, or 3) contradictory, where the
acceptance of one entails the rejection of the other, as for example, the
Judeo-Christian notion of the inviolable dignity of each individual person and
the now largely disappeared Hindu custom of suttee, widow burning. The issue of
the third category of differences will be discussed below, but here we can note
that the differences in the first two categories are not simply to be perceived
and acknowledged; they should in fact be cherished and celebrated both for
their own sakes and because by discerning them we have extended our own
understanding of reality and how to live accordingly—the primary goal of
dialogue.

The Means of Dialogue

A great variety of means and techniques of
dialogue have been successfully used and doubtless some are yet to be
developed. The overall guiding principle in this issue, however, should be to
use our creative imaginations and our sensitivity for persons. Techniques that
have already been utilized range from joint lectures and dialogues by experts
from different traditions that are listened to by large audiences on one
extreme, to personal conversations between rank and file individuals from
different traditions on the other. Whenever something more
formal than a personal conversation is planned, all the traditions to be
engaged in the dialogue should be involved in its initial planning. This is particularly true when different
communities first begin to encounter one another. Then dialogue on the
potential dialogue itself becomes an essential part of the dialogic encounter.

In the first encounters between communities, the most difficult points
of differences should not be tackled. Rather, those subjects which show promise
of highlighting commonalities should be treated first so that mutual trust
between the partners can be established and developed. Without mutual trust,
there will be no dialogue.

Vital to the development of this needed
mutual trust is that each partner come to the dialogue with total sincerity and
honesty. My partners in dialogue wish to learn to know me and my tradition as
we truly are; this is impossible if I am not totally sincere and honest. The
same is true for my dialogue partners; I cannot learn to know them and their
traditions truly if they are not completely sincere and honest. We must
simultaneously presume total sincerity and honesty in our partners as well as
practice these virtues ourselves, otherwise there will be no trust.

Care must also be taken in dialogue to compare our ideals with our
partner’s ideals and our practices with our partner’s practices. By comparing
our ideals with our partner’s practices we will always “win,” but of course we
will learn nothing—a total defeat of the purpose of dialogue.

Each partner in the dialogue must define
himself or herself; only a Muslim, for example, can know from the inside what
is means to be a Muslim, and this self-understanding will change, grow, expand,
deepen as the dialogue develops, and can be accurately described only by the
one experiencing the living, growing religious reality. Each partner needs to
come to the dialogue with no fixed assumptions as to where the authentic
differences between the traditions are, but only after following
the partner with sympathy and agreement as far as one can without violating
one’s own integrity will the true point of difference be determined. Of course, only equals can engage in full
authentic dialogue; the degree of equality will determine the degree of two-way
communication, that is, the degree of dialogue experienced. A “safe space” may
have to be provided for an “unequal” partner to be able to engage in dialogue.

An indispensable major means of dialogue is
a self-critical attitude toward ourselves and our tradition. If we are not
willing to look self-critically at our own and our tradition’s position on a
subject, the implication clearly is that we have nothing to learn from our
partner. If that is the case, we are not interested in dialogue—whose primary
purpose is to learn from our partner. To be certain, we come to the dialogue as
a Buddhist, as a Christian, as a Marxist, etc., with sincerity, honesty, and
integrity. Self-criticism, however, does not mean a lack of sincerity, honesty,
integrity. Indeed, a lack of self-criticism will mean there is no valid
sincerity, no real honesty, no authentic integrity.

Finally, the most fundamental means to
dialogue is having a correct understanding of dialogue, which is a two-way
communication so that both partners can learn from each other, and change
accordingly. If this basic goal is kept fixed in view and acted on with
imagination, creative and fruitful dialogue—and a growing transformation of
each participant’s life and that of their communities—will follow.

The Subject of
Dialogue

We have already spoken about first choosing
subjects that promise to yield a high degree of common ground so as to
establish and develop mutual trust. Let’s now look at the three main areas of dialogue:
the ‘cognitive’,
the ‘active’,
and the ‘spiritual’.

In some ways the last, the spiritual area,
would seem to be the most attractive, at least to those with a more interior,
mystical, psychological bent. Moreover it offers a greater degree of commonality.
The mystics appear to all meet together on a high level of unity with
the Ultimate Reality no matter how it is described, including even in the more philosophical systems
like Neoplatonism. The greatest of the Muslim Sufis, Jewish Kabbalists, Hindu
Bhaktas, Christian Mystics, Buddhist Bodhisattvas, and Platonist philosophers
all seem to be at one in their striving for and experience of unity with the
One, which in the West is called God, Theos. At times the image is projected of
God being the peak of the mountain that all humans are climbing by way of
different paths. Each one has a different Way (hodos in Christian Greek;
halakhah in Jewish Hebrew; Shar’ia in Muslim Arabic; marga in Hindu Sanskrit;
magga in Buddhist Pali; tao in Chinese Taoism) to reach Theos, but all are
centered on the one goal. Such an interpretation of religion or ideology is
called ‘theocentric”.

Attractive as is theocentrism, one must be cautious not to wave the varying
understandings of God aside as if they were without importance. They can make a
significant difference in human self-understanding, and hence how we behave
toward ourselves, each other, the world around us, and the Ultimate Source.
Moreover, a theocentric approach has the disadvantage of excluding non-theists from
the dialogue. This would exclude not only atheistic Humanists and Marxists, but
also non-theistic Theravada Buddhists, who do not deny the existence of God but
rather understand ultimate reality in a non-theistic, non-personal manner
(theism posits a “personal” God, Theos). One alternative way to include these
partners in the dialogue, even in this area of “spirituality,” is to speak of
the search for ultimate meaning in life, for “salvation” (salus in Latin,
meaning a salutary, whole, holy life; similarly, soteria in Greek), as what all
humans have in common in the “spiritual” area, theists and non-theists alike.
As a result, we can speak of a soterio-centrism.

In the active area dialogue has to take
place in a fundamental way on the underlying principles for action which
motivate each tradition. Once again, many similarities will be found, but also
differences, which will prove significant in determining the communities’
differing stands on various issues of personal and social ethics. It is only by
carefully and sensitively locating those underlying ethical principles for
ethical decision-making that later misunderstandings and unwarranted
frustrations in specific ethical issues can be avoided. Then specific ethical
matters, such as sexual ethics, social ethics, ecological ethics, medical
ethics, can become the focus of interreligious, interideological dialogue—and
ultimately joint action where it has been found congruent with each tradition’s
principles and warranted in the concrete circumstances.

It is, however, in the cognitive area where
the range of possible subjects is greatest. It is almost unlimited—remembering
the caution that the less difficult topics be chosen first and the more
difficult later. However, every dialogue group should be encouraged to follow
creatively its own inner instincts and interests. Some groups, of course, will
start with more particular concrete matters and then be gradually drawn to
discuss the underlying issues and principles. Others will begin with more
fundamental matters and eventually be drawn to reflect on more and more
concrete implications of the basic principles already discovered. In any case,
if proper preparation and sensitivity are provided, no subject should a priori
be declared off-limits.

Encouragement can be drawn here from the
Vatican Curia (for some, an unexpected source). The Secretariat for Dialogue
with Unbelievers wrote that even “doctrinal dialogue should be initiated with
courage and sincerity, with the greatest freedom and with reverence.” It then went
further to make a statement that is mind-jarring in its liberality: “Doctrinal
discussion requires perceptiveness, both in honestly setting out one’s own
opinion and in recognizing the truth everywhere, even if the truth demolishes
one so that one is forced to reconsider one’s own position, in theory and in
practice, at least in part.” The Secretariat then stressed that “in discussion
the truth will prevail by no other means than by the truth itself. [There
shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the
wrong way.(Quran;2:256)] Therefore, the liberty of the participants must be
ensured by law and reverenced in practice.” These are emphatic words—which
should be applicable not only to the Catholics of the world but in general.

When to
Dialogue—and When Not to

In principle, of course, we ought to be open to dialogue with all
possible partners on all possible subjects. Normally this principle should be
followed today and doubtless for many years to come because the world’s religions
and ideologies have stored up so much misinformation about and hostility toward
one another that it is almost impossible for us to know ahead of time what our
potential partner is truly like on any given subject. We normally need first of
all to enter into sincere dialogue with every potential partner, at least until
we learn where our true differences lie.

In this matter of differences, however, we
have to be very careful in the distinctions we need to make. As pointed out
above, in the process of the dialogue we will often learn that what we thought
were real differences in fact turn out to be only apparent differences;
different words or misunderstandings have merely hidden commonly shared
positions. When we enter dialogue we have to allow for the
possibility that we will ultimately learn that on some matters we will find not
a commonality but an authentic difference. As mentioned, these authentic
differences can be of three kinds: complementary, analogous, or contradictory. Complementary authentic differences will of
course be true differences, but not such that only one could be valid. We know
from our experience that the complementary differences will usually far
outnumber the contradictory. Learning of these authentic but complementary
differences will not only enhance our knowledge but also may very well lead to
the desire to adapt one or more of our partner’s complementary differences for
ourselves. As the very term suggests, the differences somehow complete each
other. As the Chinese Taoist saying puts it: Xiang fan xiang cheng (contraries
complete each other).

Just as we must constantly be extremely
cautious about “fixing” our differences a priori lest in acting precipitously
we misplace them, so too, we must not too easily and quickly place our true
differences in the contradictory category. Perhaps, for example, Hindu moksha,
Zen Buddhist satori, Christian “freedom of the children of God,” and Marxist
“communist state” could be understood as different but nevertheless analogous
descriptions of true human liberation. In speaking of true but analogous
differences in beliefs or values here, we are no longer talking about
discerning teachings or practices in our partners’ tradition which we might
then wish to appropriate for our own tradition. That does and should happen,
but then we are speaking either of something which the two traditions
ultimately held in common and was perhaps atrophied or suppressed in one, or of
something which is an authentic but complementary difference. If this
difference, however, is perceived as analogous rather than complementary or
contradictory, it will be seen to operate within the total organic structure of
the other religion-ideology and to fulfil its function properly only within it.
It would not be able to have the same function, i.e., relationship to the other
parts in our total organic structure, and hence would not be understood to be
in direct opposition, in contradiction to the “differing” element within our
structure. These real but analogous differences in beliefs or values should be
seen not as in conflict with one another, but as parallel in function, and in
that sense analogous.

Yet, at times we can find contradictory
truth claims, value claims, presented by different religious-deological
traditions. That happens, of course, only when they cannot be seen as somehow
ultimately different expressions of the same thing (a commonality) or as
complementary or analogous. When it happens, even though it be relatively rare,
a profound and unavoidable problem faces the two communities: What should be
their attitude and behaviour toward each other? Should they remain in dialogue,
tolerate each other, ignore each other, or oppose each other? This problem is
especially pressing in matters of value judgments. What, for example, should
the Christian (or Jew, Muslim, Marxist) have done in face of the now largely,
but unfortunately not entirely, suppressed Hindu tradition of widow burning
(suttee)? Should he or she try to learn its value, tolerate it, ignore it,
oppose it (in what manner)? Or the Nazi tenet of killing all Jews? These are
relatively clear issues, but what of a religion-ideology that approves slavery,
as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam [?] did until only a little over a century
ago? Maybe that is clear enough today, but what of sexism—or only a little
sexism? Or the claim that only through capitalism—or socialism—human liberation
can be gained? Making a decision on the proper stance becomes less and less
clear-cut.

Eventually it was clear to most non-Hindus
in the nineteenth century that the proper attitude was not dialogue with
Hinduism on suttee, but opposition. But apparently it was not so clear to all
non-Nazis that opposition to Jewish genocide was the right stance to take.
Furthermore, it took Christians almost two thousand years to come to that
conclusion concerning slavery. Many religions and ideologies today stand in the
midst of a battle over sexism [Discrimination based on
gender, especially discrimination against women], some
even refusing to admit the existence of the issue. Lastly, no argument need be
made to point out the controversial nature of the contemporary
capitalism-socialism issue.

Obviously, important contradictory
differences between religions-ideologies do exist and at times warrant not
dialogue but opposition. Individually we also make critical judgments on the
acceptability of positions within our own traditions and rather frequently
within our personal lives. But certainly this exercise of our critical
faculties is not to be limited to ourselves and our traditions; this perhaps
most human of faculties should be made available to all—with all the proper
constraints and concerns for dialogue already detailed at length. Of course, it
must first be determined on what grounds we can judge whether a
religious-ideological difference is in fact contradictory, and then, if it is,
whether it is of sufficient importance and nature to warrant active opposition.

Full Human Life

Because all religions-ideologies are
attempts to explain the meaning of human life and how to live accordingly,
those doctrines and customs which are perceived as hostile to human life are
not complementary or analogous but contradictory, and opposition to them should
be proportional to the extent they threaten life. An authentically full human
life then must be the measure against which all elements of all
religions-ideologies are tested as we make judgments about whether they are in
harmony, complementarity, analogy, or contradiction, and then act accordingly.

Since human beings are by nature historical
beings, what it means to be fully human is evolving. At bottom everything human
flows from what would seem to be acceptable to all as a description of the
minimally essential human structure, that is, being an animal who can think abstractly
and make free decisions. Only gradually has humanity come to the contemporary
position where claims are made in favor of “human rights,” that things are due
to all humans specifically because they are human. This position, in fact, has
not always and everywhere been held. Indeed, it was for the most part hardly
conceived until recently.

Only a little over a hundred years ago, for
example, slavery was still widely accepted and even vigorously defended and
practiced by high Christian churchmen, not to speak of Jewish and Muslim slave
traders. And yet this radical violation of human rights has today been largely
eliminated both in practice and law. Today no thinker or public leader would
contemplate justifying slavery, at least in its directly named form of the past
(see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948;
art. 4). Here we have an obvious example of the historical evolution of the
understanding of what it means to be fully human, i.e., that human beings are
by nature radically free.

Conclusion:

We share a common belief that although religion has
played a role in the conflicts which plague the world today, in the Middle East and elsewhere, religion has the potential for being
a large part of the solution. Hence we share a common hope that the potential
for peace lies within the three traditions represented by Jews, Muslims and
Christians.

Muslims are profoundly troubled by the deterioration
of the state of the world. While it is easy enough to see that religion has
contributed towards creating or aggravating a number of current problems, it is
not easy to see its healing and reconciling power in a world which is more and
more divided by hatred and hostility blasphemously proclaimed in the name of
God. One is greatly pained by the fact that religious ideas and sentiments are
being manipulated to distort and sometimes even destroy the fundamental truth
of religious traditions faith.

It is to be recognised that in many cases the issues
involved in the conflicts between the communities or peoples are by no means
simple, but it should be understood howeach community may come to
perceive its own stance as being morally and religiously justified.
Nonetheless, all must continue to believe that God, who created all human
beings, extends his care and compassion to all who believe in Him and strive
earnestly to act in accordance with his revealed will, and that it cannot be
pleasing to God that those who profess to love him do not love each other.
God’s command is clear and the issue before us is obedience.

Despite all the tensions and dissensions, one should affirm
each other as Muslims and therefore not loose sight of the peace imperative
which is deeply embedded in the Islamic traditions. The commitment to peace
entails commitment to justice, and that without justice there can be no real or
lasting peace. Peace and justice are mutually reinforcing and cannot be opposed
to each other.

Muslims believe that God is the source for all their life and that they must seek to emulate his
attributes. Not only that God is Just
but that his Mercy is overflowing. If all can remember how greatly—both as
individuals and as communities— all are in need of the compassion of God,
perhaps it would help us to find within ourselves and our traditions the
resources for transcending that history of conflicts which makes it so
difficult for us to enter into a co-operative and loving relationship with each
other and hence with our Creator, for which a Drialogue at all levels is
imperative.